Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 22nd Apr 18, 4:06 AM
    • 98Posts
    • 45Thanks
    Ibcus
    APCOA new car parking system PCN
    • #1
    • 22nd Apr 18, 4:06 AM
    APCOA new car parking system PCN 22nd Apr 18 at 4:06 AM
    I guess new is a bit relative, it seems the car park changed the system on 11th Sept 2017 (found info by googling the car park).

    The old system was get a token at barrier on entry, pay at barrier on exit.

    The new system is:
    The new system will mean that you will no longer receive a token on entry to the car park, but instead the new system will capture your vehicles number plate automatically as you enter. At the end of your visit, you can either pay via the APCOA Connect App or alternatively at one of the pay stations in the car park. You will be able to pay either by credit, debit or contactless card OR by coins. Please note: you will not be able to use notes and you will not receive change.

    The driver wasn't aware of this, the last time the driver used this car park it issued a token.
    As, once you are going into this car park there is no way to not go into it, the driver parked.
    After staying for 26 minutes thre driver left the car park expecting to see the barrier down and a means to pay, there wasn't one, similar to before, once you start to exit there is no option but to exit.

    The information about the change to parking on the web site at the moment states:
    There will be no changes to car park tariffs also opening and closing times will remain the same. Staff from APCOA will be onsite to aid any shoppers who may need assistance with the new car parking system.

    It seems they didn't have any staff at the point you actually used to pay before they changed the system, the point I would assume is most relavant.

    On reading the PCN it says it can be paid by cheque or postal order, by phone call or online.
    To appeal it says it has to be by post to a PO box number.

    APCOA have a page titled
    View the evidence, pay or challenge my Parking Charge Notice (PCN/ECN)



    Can we use this to appeal or does it have to be by post, and if we can why does it not mention it on the NtK?
Page 2
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 11th May 18, 12:43 AM
    • 98 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Ibcus
    Thanks for clearing that up.

    It seems I was given the wrong advice, as I clearly said in the first post

    To appeal it says it has to be by post to a PO box number.

    APCOA have a page titled
    View the evidence, pay or challenge my Parking Charge Notice (PCN/ECN)

    Can we use this to appeal or does it have to be by post, and if we can why does it not mention it on the NtK?
    It would have been spiffing if someone would have said no, it has to be by post like the letter says.

    The newbie thread does say this though, so I did it:

    Template appeal for BPA or IPC members - copy this wording into the online appeal box::

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 12:52 AM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,665 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes of course the NEWBIES thread says that because ludicrously, so many people can't manage to write a letter themselves these days...

    ...but I qualify my advice by saying:
    BUT DON'T POST IT BY ROYAL MAIL UNLESS YOU HAVE NO OTHER OPTION ON THE PCN. CERTAINLY NOT BY RECORDED DELIVERY - FORGET THAT! - ALWAYS USE THE ONLINE APPEAL PAGE - OR EMAIL IF OFFERED AS AN OPTION ON THE NOTICE
    You have ''no other option on the PCN'' and I have no idea why you asked, or why we need any threads at all about APCOA, who are so easy to beat you could search for their name here and just copy any other POPLA appeal and win, no thread, no need for advice.

    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 11th May 18, 1:04 AM
    • 98 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Ibcus
    ALWAYS USE THE ONLINE APPEAL PAGE - OR EMAIL IF OFFERED AS AN OPTION ON THE NOTICE

    That says to me use the appeal page, or email if offered on the notice

    ALWAYS USE THE ONLINE APPEAL PAGE OR EMAIL IF EITHER ARE OFFERED AS AN OPTION ON THE NOTICE

    maybe that would avoid confusion?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 18, 1:07 AM
    • 62,736 Posts
    • 75,665 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    No. You are splitting hairs because you didn't read it and just started a thread.

    Any thread about APCOA is just pointless and I am bored now. You will win, just APPEAL.
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 11th May 18, 1:11 AM
    • 98 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Ibcus
    Pretty sure I'm not
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 11th May 18, 8:09 AM
    • 3,228 Posts
    • 4,988 Thanks
    fisherjim
    This thread has become really tedious what on earth is going on here, why not write the letter and get on with it, PPC's are full of twists and turns, the confusion they produce is part of the scam.


    Complaining about this forum and the FREE help offered is pointless we are not your enemies!
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 9th Aug 18, 9:49 PM
    • 98 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Ibcus
    Thought I would update this thread.


    It got to the popla stage and the appeal was sent around 28th July.


    I have received an email with the following:
    Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.

    An Appeal has been opened with the reference 0*********.

    APCOA Parking have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.

    Yours sincerely

    POPLA Team
    Coupon-mad I should have just listened to you and not been an ars*.


    Thanks.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Aug 18, 10:14 PM
    • 19,731 Posts
    • 31,211 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Typical and totally predictable APCOA response to a forum-influenced POPLA appeal. They can't beat us.

    Coupon-mad I should have just listened to you and not been an ars*.
    CM is away from the forum at present, but I'm sure when she's back that will be appreciated. You were actually arguing with the most knowledgable expert and prolific contributor of advice on fighting private parking tickets in the country.

    I'm afraid there are too many who vent their frustrations at people who know what they're doing, who give so much of their free time, helping those with problems that have no direct relevance to the regulars here. It's rather surprising how many of the very small number carry on.

    Anyway, your pain is now over, but we'll be back, helping at least a dozen new posters with fresh charges, tomorrow.

    SSDD!
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 9th Aug 18, 10:32 PM
    • 98 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Ibcus
    I must admit I cringe when I read this thread.


    No idea if this is normal for the popla track appeal page.



    I was a little worried it wasn't over when I looked on the POPLA Decisions thread then logged into popla to check my outcome, it seems there is no decision there.


    Anyway, I wish the pain was over, there is still the HX parking one that a ticket was paid for but without the full reg being entered into the machine. I have the privilege of dealing with Gladstones on that one.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Aug 18, 10:43 PM
    • 19,731 Posts
    • 31,211 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Anyway, I wish the pain was over, there is still the HX parking one that a ticket was paid for but without the full reg being entered into the machine. I have the privilege of dealing with Gladstones on that one.
    Not as easy to shake off. That's not to say they have any more of a case than APCOA did, but the IPC have created so many cul de sacs to manoeuvre people into - with no meaningful appeals process - you're going to need a Judge to resolve it.
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 9th Aug 18, 10:49 PM
    • 98 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Ibcus
    Now how do you fancy helping this guy?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45119366
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Aug 18, 10:53 PM
    • 19,731 Posts
    • 31,211 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Now how do you fancy helping this guy?
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45119366
    Originally posted by Ibcus
    I don't think the NEWBIES FAQ sticky covers that. Wouldn't mind a spin in the motor though!
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 9th Aug 18, 11:23 PM
    • 98 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Ibcus
    While this thread is about APCOA I thought I would mention this that happened at work today.

    A work mate came in and said a traffic warden was taking pictures outside our buidling.

    There are a few parking bays at the side of the building in a pretty large gap between our building and the next buildings, a part of the road outside that is marked off for parking and a pretty large car park at the back. All this parking is free with no restrcitions at all.

    I went out to take a look and to see if she was taking pictures of my car, I found her on the car park at the back (my car was there), tacking pictures. I asked was I going to get intot trouble for parking there, she said no and that the council had asked for a survey to be taken, mentioned bays may need remarking (they do), resident parking and work/shopper parking.

    Now I noticed she had shoulder epaulettes that said Wigan Council, nothing strange in that.
    Then I looked at her vest, it said APCOA Parking

    I queried it and she said she works for Wigan Council on behalf of APCOA.

    It didn't seem right to me that she works for APCOA but has Wigan Council on her shoulders.


    I am now terrified that these parasites are going to control the free parking around my work and make it a living hell for us all.
    • DW190
    • By DW190 9th Aug 18, 11:34 PM
    • 68 Posts
    • 93 Thanks
    DW190
    While this thread is about APCOA I thought I would mention this that happened at work today.

    A work mate came in and said a traffic warden was taking pictures outside our buidling.

    There are a few parking bays at the side of the building in a pretty large gap between our building and the next buildings, a part of the road outside that is marked off for parking and a pretty large car park at the back. All this parking is free with no restrcitions at all.

    I went out to take a look and to see if she was taking pictures of my car, I found her on the car park at the back (my car was there), tacking pictures. I asked was I going to get intot trouble for parking there, she said no and that the council had asked for a survey to be taken, mentioned bays may need remarking (they do), resident parking and work/shopper parking.

    Now I noticed she had shoulder epaulettes that said Wigan Council, nothing strange in that.
    Then I looked at her vest, it said APCOA Parking

    I queried it and she said she works for Wigan Council on behalf of APCOA.

    It didn't seem right to me that she works for APCOA but has Wigan Council on her shoulders.


    I am now terrified that these parasites are going to control the free parking around my work and make it a living hell for us all.
    Originally posted by Ibcus
    Apcoa will have the contract to for enforcement on behalf of Wigan Council.


    Think they use the term working in partnership with.
    • Redx
    • By Redx 9th Aug 18, 11:35 PM
    • 19,613 Posts
    • 24,915 Thanks
    Redx
    it is thought that when the BPA did a deal with the Ombudsman Service, that the OS would only get paid a fee on anything they adjudicated on

    so it is thought that the PPC take it to the wire and see what an apellant popla appeal contains , then withdraw from the case in order to save the fee

    if they do this too often it is thought that they will get penalised and the a record is kept of the number of withdrawals and those who perpetrate this sc@m

    so you would think that when the contract is renewed, or when the Greg Knight bill becomes law, that any adjudicator might charge a fee regardless, which then may stop operators from giving out appeal codes and possibly and actually reading initial appeals and then cancelling the charge , like HIGHVIEW seem to do

    whatever happens, I dont think the next AOS ADR contract will allow parking companies to flagrantly disrespect the justice system that aims to be fair to both sides , whereas they exploit this aspect at the moment , which is why we see apcoa throw the towel in so often , yet they repeat the same mistakes over and over again , like Groundhog Day

    and some councils do contract out CEO work to parking companies like APCOA
    Last edited by Redx; 09-08-2018 at 11:48 PM.
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 9th Aug 18, 11:44 PM
    • 98 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Ibcus
    So if APCOA are sniffing around my work place it seems like they will get the go ahead from Wigan Council to 'enforce' the area.
    I'm assuming her task was to document how many parking bays are there to see how much they could make from them, it is busy but most are shoppers that don't stay long, it's just us workers that will get hounded by them.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Aug 18, 11:50 PM
    • 19,731 Posts
    • 31,211 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Wouldn't be at all surprised that she was actually ticketing in some form or another.

    They come up with all sorts of mealy-mouthed lies to avoid direct confrontation. Time will tell, soon enough!
    The fact that I have commented on your thread does not mean I have become your personal adviser. A long list of subsequent questions addressed for my personal attention is unlikely to receive a reply.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 9th Aug 18, 11:52 PM
    • 9,805 Posts
    • 10,147 Thanks
    KeithP
    Ibcus, can you please include a link back to this thread in your post on the 'PoPLA decisions' thread?

    Thanks.
    .
    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 10th Aug 18, 12:27 AM
    • 98 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Ibcus
    done, and this is what I sent in the appeal.
    I stole it from this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5845380
    so thanks to nickysantanov

    The parts in bold should be changed to your details



    POPLA Ref *********
    APCOA Parking PCN no *********
    Dear Sir or Madam,

    A notice to keeper was issued on [day of issue] and received by me, the registered keeper of [car registration] on [day received] for an alleged contravention of 'BREACH OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE'' at [site of car park] on [day of parking]. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons:

    1) Payment was made for the period of parking.
    2) Non-compliance with requirements and timetable set out in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    3) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge. (ref POPLA case Carly Law 6061796103)
    4) No landowner contract nor legal standing to form contracts or charge drivers

    1) The driver of the vehicle has a vivid memory of paying the appropriate fee prior to exiting the car park. This was the first time the driver had used the car park since its management was taken over by APCOA using an ANPR system, payment was made with the vehicles registration being entered into the payment machine, an image of the vehicle was displayed and a receipt was given.

    If APCOA wish to pursue me for non-payment, the burden of proof rests with them to demonstrate their database does not contain a matching payment for my vehicle within the grace period prior to my vehicle exiting the car park at approximately [time and date pcn says you exited car park].
    I suggest this could be easily confirmed by making available the relevant sections of their database for independent scrutiny by a knowledgeable person if indeed no payment was made. APCOA simply claiming they do not have a record is not sufficient evidence.

    2) If APCOA want to make use of the Keeper Liability provisions in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 and APCOA have not issued and delivered a parking charge notice to the driver in the place where the parking event took place, your Notice to Keeper must meet the strict requirements and timetable set out in the Schedule (in particular paragraph 9). I have had no evidence that APCOA have complied with these BPA Code requirements for ANPR issued tickets so require them to evidence their compliance to POPLA.

    3) In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to pay. I am the appellant throughout (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

    As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made because the fact remains I am only the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this case, to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

    Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA 2012 was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

    Understanding keeper liability

    "There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

    There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass."

    Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

    This exact finding was made in 6061796103 against ParkingEye in September 2016, where POPLA Assessor Carly Law found:
    "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not need to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal."

    The same conclusion was reached by POPLA Assessor Steve Macallan, quoted in appeal point 5 above.


    4)Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO CCTV Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach.

    BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) states that:
    It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
    • be registered with the Information Commissioner
    • keep to the Data Protection Act
    • follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
    • follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.

    BPA’s Code of Practice (36.1a) states that:
    You may send an NTO to the registered keeper…”
    You must tell them about the complaints procedure they can use to tell the Information Commissioner and the DVLA if they believe their data has been used inappropriately.”
    The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office that the BPA’s Code of Practice (21.4) refers to is the CCTV Code of Practice found at https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

    The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice makes the following assertions:
    “This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment including:
    • Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);”

    the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any organisation using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.”
    If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.”
    You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals”
    You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper assessment.”
    If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.”
    Example: A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimise these intrusions, such as information being automatically deleted when a car that has not contravened the restrictions leaves a car park.”
    Note:
    ... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.”
    A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.”

    The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice state that if APCOA wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that APCOA must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.
    It therefore follows that I require APCOA to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use has “a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate”.
    The ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice goes on to state:
    5.3 Staying in Control
    Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice. You should:
    tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;”

    7.6 Privacy Notices
    It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear.
    One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.
    APCOA have not stated on their signage a Privacy Notice explaining the keepers right to a Subject Access Request (SAR). This is in direct violation of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice – specifically with the extracts quoted above.
    As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO’s CCTV Code of Practice, and in turn the BPA’s Code of Practice that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.

    5) I do not believe that the Operator has demonstrated a proprietary interest in the land, because they have no legal possession which would give APCOA Parking Ltd any right to offer parking spaces, let alone allege a contract with third party customers of the lawful owner/occupiers. In addition, APCOA Parking Ltd.'s lack of title in this land means they have no legal standing to allege trespass or loss if that is the basis of their charge. I require APCOA Parking Ltd to demonstrate their legal ownership of the land to POPLA.

    I contend that APCOA Parking Ltd is only an agent working for the owner and their signs do not help them to form a contract without any consideration capable of being offered. VCS-v-HMRC 2012 is the binding decision in the Upper Chamber which covers this issue with compelling statements of fact about this sort of business model.

    I believe there is no contract with the landowner/occupier that entitles APCOA Parking Ltd to levy these charges and therefore it has no authority to issue parking charge notices (PCNs). This being the case, the burden of proof shifts to APCOA Parking Ltd to prove otherwise so I require that APCOA Parking Ltd produce a copy of their contract with the owner/occupier and that the POPLA adjudicator scrutinises it. Even if a basic contract is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between APCOA Parking Ltd and the owner/occupier, containing nothing that APCOA Parking Ltd can lawfully use in their own name as a mere agent, that could impact on a third-party customer.

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
    Faithfully,
    *****


    • Ibcus
    • By Ibcus 10th Aug 18, 1:16 AM
    • 98 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Ibcus
    Wouldn't be at all surprised that she was actually ticketing in some form or another.

    They come up with all sorts of mealy-mouthed lies to avoid direct confrontation. Time will tell, soon enough!
    Originally posted by Umkomaas

    She showed me a glance of a clip board that she was ticking boxes on when I was talking to her, she actually follwed me to my place of work to show me the clip board again but I didn't take much notice of it, I had to get back to work.


    There are no signs up at all about parking restrictions.


    I'm going to mention it to all the shops around there that they should look into them trying to enforce parking in the area, pretty sure it won't go down well
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

408Posts Today

4,982Users online

Martin's Twitter